Our president

It's not really about who's killing who or even who has oil. No folks it's about "global"/"world" banking and finance.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html

Obama isn't and never was a "moderate". That should have been obvious from who he installed in his cabinet to deal with the economic collapse. You don't hire foxes to protect the henhouse.

 

fail pol sci 101?

 

China is not the problem. China relies on the western market. Western manufacturers created the power of China.

Government in the US is not too big, actually. What it is is ineffectual. And we should ask why it is?

What a "president" can do is only limited by what he actually wants to accomplish. I think when Obama appointed Goldman Sach's alumni to his cabinet we should have all been awakened to his true motive. His first year should have been defined by how he dealt with the financial crisis, instead we focussed on what? A promise that he needed more time...sorry I gave him four years: He hasn't lived up to that projection. He won't get my vote this time. Extended Bush tax cuts, no real financial reform, higher insurance rates, higher gas, more antiunion laws, a new war based on the interests of bankers...he's not my candidate. I'd rather vote for a republican.

 

No, I was an "A" student, but schooled when there was a more discernible difference between politicians on the Left and Right.

 

It's clear to me that Obama is better than bush. There is no candidate who had a chance of winning that clearly to me would be a better president.

I don't think that people realize how close we came to total economic collapse, and I think Obama should get some credit for managing the crisis with a reasonable degree of competence

People tend to vote based on their contentment with current circumstances rather than on a rational assessment of a president's performance

The economy would have been screwed pretty much no matter what Obama did. Government spending on a stimulus bill might have revived the economy to some degree, but people don't understand macroeconomics, and such a bill would have been politically impossible

Obama can be blamed for giving people exaggerated expectations, but not for poor performance.

Yes, Obama kissed wallstreet's ass, but they have so much damn money, they have a stranglehold on the media and elections. I'm not sure anyone could go up against the fat cats within the system and win

 

government by private contractor is not generally considered to be an element of leftist theory

 

what government should or should not do is a matter of debate. I think that government should try to represent the best interests of the people. the government minimalists are essentially arguing for the corporate take-over of america

I think this is the same thing as saying moral responsibility is the first thing that should be eliminated. If the only thing that america stands for anymore is greed and self-interest, we are doomed to eventually collapse into our own moral vacuum

We don't have the ability to fix all of the world's problems. That doesn't mean that we should abandon any concern for anyone but ourselves.

If your neighbor's house was raided by thieves and murderer's, hopefully you would call 911, and not gripe about the tax cost involved. This just seems like common decency to me.

If ending genocide, mass rape, brutality, and the suffering of the innocent were as easy as giving my life, I would

The debt is a huge problem. Tax cuts are popular, but spending cuts, for the most part, are not. The voters are primarily to blame for embracing debt spending.

The top one percent now holds almost half the countries financial wealth. The bottom 80 percent holds about 7 percent. Seems to me like this is the main problem

yeah, the hatian government is totally corrupt and incompetent. damned bastards just care about putting money in their own pockets and don't give a shit what happens to their own country

 

Isn’t every issue a matter of debate?

A representation of a people’s best interest does not include controlling and affecting every facet of that people’s lives. Government is too involved in too many parts of our life that should be left to individual responsibility. Much of this we have brought about by failing to look further than the ends of our noses – we ask for and expect too much support from our government without being willing to accept personal responsibility. Granted, in many cases we have no choice except to look to the government for support. However, many times government programs or regulations have either eliminated or so constricted any avenue of helping ourselves that such is the case. Corporate take-over is unstoppable so long as our politicians are dependent on the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to get them elected.

Eliminating foreign aid is nothing akin to eliminating moral responsibility – a responsibility that we should first exercise and further in our own country – solve our own problems first. One doesn’t have to look very far to see that a moral vacuum already exists within the US and will be a major cause for our downfall. The US seems to believe that every problem can be solved by pouring money on it. There are dozens of examples of such and of the failure of those programs from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and beyond.

If my neighbor’s house were being raided by thieves and murders, I would, indeed, call 911 – after I had taken whatever measures possible to protect my own house from the raiders. That seems like common sense to me.

One is certainly to be commended to be willing to give their life for something they believe in. But, as my original post queried, how many are willing to give the lives of their children? Too many are quick to say what “we” should do, when there is no potential for such sacrifice. The same mindset usually holds that technology and airpower or diplomacy alone can stop the tyranny. Such thinking could not be further from the truth – “boots on the ground” will be required – who will be wearing the “boots” is the only uncertainty. In Libya, the “rebels” first asked for air power so that they might defeat Quadaffi. Then, they asked for weapons. Now, they have apparently asked for (and received from France) “advisors”. This seems way too familiar.

Almost everyone is in favor of spending cuts so long as the cut does not affect them or their pet projects or programs. This seems a matter of personal responsibility and accountability to a great extent. Voters, are primarily to blame for embracing the deficit spending – such is reflected by the home mortgage and credit card crisis.

As for distribution of wealth among the populace without contesting the numbers, one should be aware that such figures include mostly adults as the wealthy (top) and adults and children as the poor and middle class (bottom) – whose children usually hold no financial wealth thereby diluting the meaning and real accuracy of such reporting. No doubt, there is too wide a gap in the “distribution of wealth” in the US. Robin Hood is not the solution – education and real incentive is.

Unfortunately, our government, many private foundations and individual fund raising efforts have measured the success of aid to Haiti only in terms of dollars and not true results.

 

I don't see how you can even say this! The President did something NO Republican would have done. He brought universal healthcare to Americans! This will be the crowning jewel for his administration. Let the Republicans try to reverse it! Hopefully, Americans will see right through that.

What else would you have him do? Push for gay marriages? He has! Push to have mariquana legalized? He has! Name any moderately to medium liberal issue he has come out against. None.

No, I'm sorry, he's far from being a moderate Republican. Wait until his second term when he can really let go and move even further to the left.

 

The short answer is no. I suppose someone could try to debate almost anything, but I don't think anyone could make serious argument that the earth is flat, for example. But more to the point, yes there is certainly room for reasonable debate about what the proper role of government should be

I think that government can over regulate. I think that too much paper work is required from small business owners, for example. I think that the patriot act and travel related restrictions are excessive or unnecessary.

I don't think that the government controls every aspect of our lives, and I wish they would, for example regulate the media more. It's in the hands of a very few companies now, and is generally serving to undermine our society

I favor restrictions on campaign finance. Apparently the supreme court thinks that campaign contributions represent free speech.

I think that the small government agenda translates into backing programs that help the wealthy get richer while cutting anything that helps the poor.

no. people that are the victims of genocide have a much greater need. this just seems like selfishness to me

totally agree

I don't think the invasion of Afghanistan qualifies as a government aid program. The afghan and iraq wars were ill-conceived. We can thank bush for that.

Is there an aid program in Zimbabwe in particular that you are referring to?

Rather than debating the metaphor, it seems that there are situations, most saliently genocide, which are more pressing than our own needs. I think that if america stood for something other than self-interest, I think that we would find that we would be better off ourselves in the long run.

I think it's certainly the case that many people would be more reluctant to throw around military power if they or their family members were the ones in harms way. However, it's the job of the military to fight when they are called upon to. As long as someone has joined the military voluntarily, they have agreed to that duty.

Had there been no us involvement in libya, I think a lot of innocent civilians would have died. Defeating quadafi may indeed take boots on the ground, but I don't think that the us will be supplying them. if others want to intevene, let them

I don't think we can simply educate ourselves out of inequity in the distribution of wealth. There are lots of people who are already over qualified for the jobs they hold. Many jobs have been and will continue to be eliminated by automation. There simply won't be enough jobs for every person willing and able to work.

It's not like it once was, where you could go out into the wilderness and stake a claim. All of the land and the resources are owned. An individual craftsman can't compete with factory produced goods. It would be great if we could just redirect people to useful labor, but as more jobs are eliminated, we need to give people something better than just "sucks to be you"

 

Who pulls the strings? Obviously not the general population, who for the most part have no political agenda they wish to impose upon others.

 

the people with the $ pull the strings, their only agenda is to get more of it

the general population does have an agenda; what they don't have is a voice

when the general population pulls the strings then you have leftist theory; then you have marxism

[the dictatorship of the proletariat]

lenin kinda ruined everything, but surely you're old enough to remember the world before him, right?

 

And the Agenda has no political boundaries. How does that work when the people's agenda is different than the dictator's (OR was it the money's agenda <ha, ha>) as personally perceived by the PERSON. Orwellian is impossible for Agendas.

<a picture of ME , stabbing my self in the stomach>

 

Getting more money is everyones agenda.

That's how government works, it grows larger and larger, knowing exactly what is best for the governed without having to listen to the voices of the governed who couldn't possibly know what is best for them.

Actually you have democracy when the general population pulls the strings, majority rule which tends to become mob rule.

Leninism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, are all great forms of government for societies that only wish to acquire food and shelter.

Class warfare, If you don't have what it takes to succeed or just maintain your life, blame it on someone else. That evil rich person made me poor, and now he/she owes me a living.

Who is John Galt? About time they made the movie, and I can't wait to see it.

 

actually, it is not mine

and there's a big difference between wanting enough money for a regular life and wanting it all

democracy is leftist, just not very far along . . .

what's so wrong with wanting food and shelter?

do you really think it's better that some have too much and others none at all?

 

No it isn't. Some of us have more important things to worry about. Money is only important if you allow it to be. There are many things much more important than money. We've allowed ourselves to be misguided to the extent that we think money is the most important aspect of life. It isn't. Never was. Should never be.

 

It then becomes relative to how you define a "regular" life.

Democracy is simply Mob rule. Yeah, I guess you could then call it Leftist.

Nothing at all. Is that ALL you want?

Better than what? Who determines what is too much? Why do the "others" have nothing at all?

 

Until we return to bartering, money will remain important. Can you provide your needs without using money? Actually, the product of individual labor is the most important thing, and money is the means by which avail ourselves of each others labors.

I raise fish, but it would be difficult for me to purchase a house or car with my fish, so I can sell them for an agreeable price to others and accumulate money which can be used to purchase any other product, service, or labor.

 

I think most of us would also like the liberty to get on with our lives without the intervention of the monied elites seeking to make a buck off of us. I don't really mind the entreprenuerial spirit, but when they seek to exist at the expense of my liberties I mind a lot.

 

That's all it is a means of exchange. That exchange is only as important as you choose to make it or allow others to make it.